Search and seizure safeguards under tax law upheld where objective belief, retention limits, and residential-search controls curb arbitrariness.

Statutory search and seizure powers under section 36 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act were examined against Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) and (g). The provision was treated as valid because it operated only on reasonable grounds to believe tax evasion was being attempted and relevant material would be found, while retention was controlled by time limits, recorded reasons, approval for longer custody, and issuance of a receipt. Residential searches were also restricted by rank, timing, and prior sanction safeguards. The absence of an express pre-search reasons requirement and non-application of section 165 CrPC did not invalidate the scheme. The challenge therefore failed and the provisions were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 36 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, conferring power of search and seizure in relation to books, accounts and documents, are unconstitutional as being unguided, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The power under section 36(3) is conditioned by the existence of reasonable grounds for believing that the dealer is trying to evade tax liability and that relevant material is likely to be found in the books or documents to be seized. The provision also regulates retention of seized material by prescribing time limits, requiring written reasons and approval for longer retention, and obliging the officer to give a receipt and, where relevant, affix signature and seal. Section 36(4) similarly restricts search of a dwelling house by requiring rank, timing and prior sanction safeguards. These controls were treated as sufficient to exclude arbitrariness. The absence of an express requirement to record reasons before search, or the non-application of section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was held not to invalidate the scheme, especially in light of the comparable search and seizure powers upheld in tax legislation and the settled view that reasonable grounds must exist objectively.

Conclusion: The challenge failed. Sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 36 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, were held to be intra vires and valid.

Final Conclusion: The search and seizure provisions were upheld as constitutionally valid, and the writ petition was left to be decided on merits by the learned single Judge.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory search and seizure power is not arbitrary or unconstitutional where it is confined by objective preconditions of reasonable belief and by procedural safeguards regulating seizure, retention and residential search.

---